i have been following the discussion about whether certain
characteristics are intrinsic to science or not. i am curious about what
the participants believe is this thing called "science"? how do you
delineate it from other activities so as to provide meaning to your
positions on the matter. could not the correctness of your position
hinge on the very definition you adopt?
(yes this is all old hat: if you are too strict in your definition, such
as defining science as a 'method', then it has been demonstrated that
what we accept as science often breaks this 'method' rule. if you make
the definition more general, say a form of discovery or reporting, then
many activities, that the high priests are unwilling to accept as
science, qualify).
my own suspicion (which i will try to flesh out if this thread proceeds)
is that what is broadly accepted as science or scientific activity (or
approach), by the high priests and their followers, is indeed inherently
dehumanizing (i think that's carl remick's [sp?] position?) and
dangerous. again i am reminded of martin heidegger: "science does not
think". i must stress my use of the word 'suspicion' (since the last
time i said something on a similar matter, i upset jks terribly). i wish
i had more time to tie this thread to the thread about language and
formalism (where i raised the question of whether a language can be
developed that is not strictly formalized but can still lead to
consistent and finite proofs of "truth" for various propositions).
--ravi
